Tarot of Ceremonial Magic Study Group - The Magus

ravenest

Aeon418 said:
I wonder what Crowley would make of Lon's decision to place the sigils on Tarot cards? Crowley's original sigils were re-drawn for publication by J.F.C. Fuller. A note in Crowley's hand tells Fuller not to leave the sigils laying around because they are "dangerously automatic". Don't stare at the cards, kids!

Thanks for opening the fish on the table. In light of recent events I certainly wasnt going to !

(whoever it was ) < wanders over to 'The Beasts bookcase, while he is busy making them some 'beastly tea' , grabs a book, starts to open it ... Crowley enters ; >

" DO NOT OPEN THAT BOOK ! "

( I am assuming it was the note book for this Liber. )

Aeon418 said:
I would have liked to have heard Lon's reasoning behind his decision to swap the Heh and Tzaddi sigils around. More double loop fun!

Really ? Oooo ... let me guess .... we do need a marketing gimmick ... no one else has done it yet (have they ) ... looking at the rest of the card ... it certainly needs something to 'jazz it up '

Thats why I wanted to read it ... as I dont remember him actually explaining any thing, let alone a reason or justification .

In any case, most of you 'old timers' know by now what I think of LMdQ

< fumbles through book , next, annoint head with Abremalin oil ... righteo then, ( tips bottle of oil on head ) ... now what next ...

ARRGHHH ! MY EYES

.... staggers around circle, knocks over book bell and candle, starts fire , scatters demonic sigils everywhere, races off to the sink, breaking the circle in the process ....

ravenest

Zephyros said:
Um, sorry if this is a blindingly obvious question but what are they for?. I couldn't find any either primary or secondary sources about them (although that doesn't mean anything), and people I asked around on groups on Facebook didn't have a clue either. This deck is aimed at a specific niche of people, ceremonial magicians, who would find it useful. The answer can't be to just add more symbolism to a Tarot card, that would make the deck a waste of time. Personable as Duquette is, he isn't always completely forthcoming, especially when higher order stuff is discussed. But I would find it hard to believe he would go to all the trouble of creating this deck with the sigils being its main feature and not have any idea of how they would be used.

Are there any publicly published rituals using them? Would they be used to summon "demons" like in the Abramelin?

You have to be an initiate

Zephyros

ravenest said:
You have to be an initiate

I don't know if you were speaking in jest, but you're right in any case, I freely admit that. However, information about how something is used isn't the same as knowledge of how to use it. I don't know how to build an F-35, nor do I know how to fly one, but I do know that it's primary purpose is to kill people.

ravenest

Aeon418 said:
All these 'spirits' correspond to aspects of yourself. With their names and sigils you've basically got a telephone directory to those parts of yourself. You can ritually invoke the spirits for purposes that conform to their natures, and thereby strengthen that part of yourself. (Or at least make yourself more aware of it.) You could skry the sigils and gain knowledge by way of vision that increases your personal understanding of a particular card/path. The Mercurial sigils could even be used as talismans.

Some of them, including this first set are a little obscure, others more obvious, I was going to outline them, but we will get to them eventually

Aeon418 said:
Another possible use may be diagnostic. When you start working with any balanced sephiroth or path(card) the corresponding unbalanced (qliphothic) aspect within yourself will tend to rise to the surface and begin to manifest in your life. In a way it's like a purge. You externalise this hidden crap so you can begin to recognise it, deal with it and ultimately reintegrate it. Having the name and sigil of the guy that's playing hell with you can come in real handy.

Ah yes, but are they 'ours' or Crowley's ? I got the names of mine some time back. Crowley's one's are very .... 'Crowleyish' (funny that ! )

Aeon418 said:
Having said that I would be very careful about messing around with the qliphotic sigils just out curiosity. Stirring up your own unacknowledged toxic sh*t without the means to handle it is probably not a good idea. That may be what Crowley's warning to Fuller was about. Why go looking for trouble when it will come and find you as a natural byproduct of the work.

Indeed ! But 2 schools of thought on that ; one is the above, the other is that to be forewarned is to be forearmed ( even Steiner , of all people , ascribed to the second view, and others {including your above 2nd paragraph }, who seem to have an affinity with the works of Swedenborg ) .

Aeon418 said:
It should also be pointed out that Liber Arcanorum doesn't appear in the A.'.A.'. curriculum until Practicus 3=8. And a full exploration of the qliphoth is the work of an Adeptus Major who has already acheived K&C and is ready to let the light of that relationship shine into the dark corners of his/her being.

Good point ! .... so lets wack em on a public tarot card deck

I do have an issue with it though, on that level ( 3 = 8 ) would not one 'absorb opposites ' to come to balance, converting them to servitors ? Instead if the more beginning level of 'banishing ' and locking up in a prison ? (Well, unless they are REALLY naughty .)

ravenest

Zephyros said:
I don't know if you were speaking in jest, but you're right in any case, I freely admit that. However, information about how something is used isn't the same as knowledge of how to use it. I don't know how to build an F-35, nor do I know how to fly one, but I do know that it's primary purpose is to kill people.

Understanding purpose and result is a very good start.

One of the most beautiful looking, and wanting to touch and hold (and even looks good enough to eat ) crystalline minerals is ...

... pure crystalline mineral arsenic .

smw

Well, I am confused as to this deck now, or how the study group moves on.

My understanding of the views put forward, is that the deck is for ceremonial magicians only and those ideally at Practicus level, with the protection of their HGA. Without being at this level it may be unwise or possibly lethal to explore them due to their automatic nature and stirring up of your own Qliphotic aspects.

If that advice is taken on board, how would that fit with continuing exploration of this deck and the sigils? even if by more experienced people? For others, following any discussion or outlining of the sigils, wouldn't that still mean looking and thinking about them, possibly bringing up their their automatic affect?

Zephyros

smw said:
Well, I am confused as to this deck now, or how the study group moves on.

My understanding of the views put forward, is that the deck is for ceremonial magicians only and those ideally at Practicus level, with the protection of their HGA. Without being at this level it may be unwise or possibly lethal to even explore them due to their automatic nature.

If that advice is taken on board, how would that fit with continuing exploration of the deck and sigils? even if by more experienced people? For others, following any discussion or outlining of the sigils, wouldn't that still mean looking and thinking about them, possibly bringing up their their automatic affect?

Well, I haven't burned my copy of the Book of Law, and I'm a centre of pestilence for having discussed it here on the forum. Views are just that, views, and with any magickal working, including a simple Tarot divination, there's always a certain amount of risk. We'll soldier on and see where it takes us.

Aeon418

ravenest said:
Thats why I wanted to read it ... as I dont remember him actually explaining any thing, let alone a reason or justification .

He doesn't explain anything. Swapping the Heh and Tzaddi sigils might seem like a no-brainer in light of other swaps. But this one seems a little tricky. At first glance the swap of Mercurial sigils seems obvious. A particular form of the pentagram is Nuit's special symbol, so on the surface it seems like a perfect match. But there are good reasons to keep the Swastika (Tzaddi) sigil on card XVII too. By her pose and association with the Sign of Isis Mourning, the lady of the Star card is the Swastika. And the card's numeral value, 17, links it to the Swastika.

(Plus other stuff in Liber 418.)

And then you've got the thorny issue of trying to reconcile the swap with the text of Liber Arcanorum. But, admittedly, that liber was received prior to Crowley's discovery of the swap. Still, a word or two of explanation from Lon would have been nice.

Aeon418

ravenest said:
Some of them, including this first set are a little obscure, others more obvious, I was going to outline them, but we will get to them eventually

That's one reason why I suggested the textual portion of Arcanorum. It is a sort of commentary on the sigils, after a fashion.

ravenest said:
Ah yes, but are they 'ours' or Crowley's ? I got the names of mine some time back. Crowley's one's are very .... 'Crowleyish' (funny that ! )

But how did you get them in the first place? I'm sure you know the procedure for dealing with spiritual hierarchies as well as I do.

1. Divine name.
2. Archangel.
3. Angel.
4. Intelligence.
5. Spirit.
6. Spirit/Genni. (See Liber XXII)
7. Qliphoth. (See Liber XXII)

Did you leave steps 6 and 7 blank as you worked your way down the ladder. Or did you have make do and use what was provided until something else presented itself as suitable for you personally?

In a way it's like the practice of substituting the name Aiwass in place of a persons own HGA name. Aiwass (being numerically 93=418) is such a general and broard symbol of the True Will and the Great Work that any particular personal manifestations are merely specialisations of that general principle.

ravenest said:
Indeed ! But 2 schools of thought on that ; one is the above, the other is that to be forewarned is to be forearmed ( even Steiner , of all people , ascribed to the second view, and others {including your above 2nd paragraph }, who seem to have an affinity with the works of Swedenborg ) .

And that's the same reasoning behind Crowley's standard test in the Neophyte exam. As part of that exam the aspirant is required to skry the qliphoth of their own sun sign. But this takes place at the conclusion of the Neophyte work. I'm sure I don't need to quote Liber Librae to you and the importance of a 'sure foundation'.

ravenest said:
I do have an issue with it though, on that level ( 3 = 8 ) would not one 'absorb opposites ' to come to balance, converting them to servitors ?

Not necessarilly. There is no exam or testing of this material at 3=8. It is provided as another 'tool' that may or may not be useful to the particular needs of the aspirant at that time. (The seeds planted here may flower later on.) However the 3=8 still needs some degree of familiarity with the material.

ravenest said:
Instead if the more beginning level of 'banishing ' and locking up in a prison ?

Locking up in prision is Lon's interpretation. You would have to ask him what he means by that.

Aeon418

smw said:
My understanding of the views put forward, is that the deck is for ceremonial magicians only and those ideally at Practicus level, with the protection of their HGA.

For ceremonial magicians only? There are aspects of the deck that may be useful in CM, but it's still just a Tarot deck. In fact, despite the crude artwork, it's possibly one of the 'easiest reading' decks I've ever used. That bit surprised me!

smw said:
Without being at this level it may be unwise or possibly lethal to explore them due to their automatic nature and stirring up of your own Qliphotic aspects.

Crowley had a bit of thing about that. He ticked off Grady McMurtry when he caught him thumbing through his copy of Abramelin.

smw said:
If that advice is taken on board, how would that fit with continuing exploration of this deck and the sigils? even if by more experienced people? For others, following any discussion or outlining of the sigils, wouldn't that still mean looking and thinking about them, possibly bringing up their their automatic affect?

Unless you're especially sensitive I can't see any harm in just looking at the sigils. Neither do I see any reason to be overly panicky or fearful about them. But unless you're proficient with some form of banishing ritual it's probably not a good idea to obsessively brood over them for extended periods of time.